Federation Commander Forum Index Federation Commander
A NEW fast paced board game of starship combat!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

A question about new EM rule
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> Rules Questions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
junior
Captain


Joined: 08 May 2007
Posts: 803

PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ShockRocket wrote:
[I don't understand why people are saying that this new EM rule is "better", when it's more restrictive, more difficult to implement, requires more advance planning, and demonstrably disadvantages the races it was supposed to assist!


Like it or not, you take the opportunities that you get. And sometimes Range 2 is the best that you can force - particularly when you consider that that there are four movement opportunities between each firing attempt. One game I played came down to a move I made (I was playing a Kzinti in that game) that my Klingon opponent was able to respond to and that allowed him to keep his ship out of tractor range. And using Fusion Beams at range 2 is considerably more effective than using Photons at range 15. It's range 3 Fusion Beams that are like the long range Photons.

Further, I don't understand why you say that the new EM rule is more restrictive. It doesn't add any new restrictions to EM. It simply moves the implementation of EM back one phase. What it does is remove a tactic that heavily impacts very selective races (specifically, those with nearly or completely non-existant seeking weapons). And the "advanced planning" argument is getting tiresome and, in a word, hypocritical. If I argue that EM unfairly punishes a close and hose race that manages to get the drop on an opposing ship, then the response here is ALWAYS, "Well, you should have planned for that in advance."

Or in other words, the rule of thumb seems to be that the close and hose races have to plan for what to do after they finally manage to get their opponent at close range, while the other races don't have to plan for what they will do when they get caught with their pants down.

Finally...

Quote:
But again, the game has always been like this. Hydran Fusion ships have always needed to get close.


Remember that Hydrans only recently came out of playtesting and were "officially" added to FedCom. "Always" in this case is a few months. It's true that in SFB they had to get close to their opponent. It's been their playstyle since they were first introduced in that game. But it's also been repeatedly pointed out here that EM in SFB doesn't work the same way that it does in FedCom (nor do Hydran Stingers, for that matter). So to put it quite plainly, that argument doesn't hold water.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pinecone
Fleet Captain


Joined: 03 May 2008
Posts: 1865
Location: Earth

PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why doesn't the klink just fire before he gets to critical range, threatening the fed, and forcing a HET?
_________________
Doomed to live in secret since discovering that the Air Force Tapes were a fantasy... Embarassed

"Your knowledge of my existence must be punished" Twisted Evil
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ShockRocket
Lieutenant JG


Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 26

PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

junior wrote:
Like it or not, you take the opportunities that you get. And sometimes Range 2 is the best that you can force - particularly when you consider that that there are four movement opportunities between each firing attempt.
So we should change everything about the game system to make one race's marginal case workable?

Quote:
Further, I don't understand why you say that the new EM rule is more restrictive...the "advanced planning" argument is getting tiresome and, in a word, hypocritical.
No. You need to do better than "it's tiresome". You need to explain why it's an invalid argument and answer the objection. You can't just ad-hom this one away.

Quote:
If I argue that EM unfairly punishes a close and hose race that manages to get the drop on an opposing ship, then the response here is ALWAYS, "Well, you should have planned for that in advance."
Yes. That's because you should have done it! I don't really know what else to say here. You have to be aware of your enemy's capabilities--and in a game where you know how much power the enemy has, I don't really see how there's an excuse for you not to know that he can still go on EM. Dealing with EM is part of a close-range race's tactical problem, and it has been this way ever since SFB.

Quote:
Remember that Hydrans only recently came out of playtesting and were "officially" added to FedCom. "Always" in this case is a few months.
Last page people were justifying the EM change by saying that "it didn't work this way in SFB". Now you're saying that Hydrans in FC ought to work differently from the way they did in SFB. I wish the people I'm arguing with would make up their minds!

edit: I don't think I've ever made a vB post without inadvertently typing "QUTOE" at least once.


Last edited by ShockRocket on Tue Aug 19, 2008 8:33 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TJolley
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Posts: 284

PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 8:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow, go away for a weeks vacation and look what happens.

After reading the threads, I still am baffled as to why EM is being changed as it was not broken to begin with, even considering Paul Scotts tactic, but if you are going to change EM, why not just make ALL EM declarations occur at the beginning of an impulse? You drop EM or declare the start of EM at the beginning of an impulse. EM stops or starts before movement occurs.

This would alleviate the perceived 'screwing over the DF races' as they will have 4 sub-pulses of movement to either close or open the range, and stop the perceived problem of Plasma chuckers being able to uncloak/launch/and EM.

Excepting single ship duels, any Rom who uses this tactic will probably be losing 1 ship at least, as every drone on the Fed ships (Or Klingon, or Kzin) will be concentrated on (probably) one Romulan ship that is poking along at speed 16 and can't defend itsself, so why the uncloak/launch/EM is considered a problem is beyond me...he uncloaks and launches, I unload a barrage of drones and destroy a ship, and I turn off to run the plasmas out..then return with my still-held OL'd photons and full-strength fleet to a Romulan fleet down 1 ship..I'll repeat that pattern all day and win many more times than not...and logistics is happy, as I won't need to have my ship resupplied with as many photon torpedoes Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Bolo_MK_XL
Commander


Joined: 16 Jan 2007
Posts: 787
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 8:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I posted on this board quite a while back following a fight between a Dragoon and two Orion ships.


At range 2, the stealth penalty is plenty bad for Hydrans, even without EM ---
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Patrick Doyle
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 208
Location: Norfolk, VA

PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 12:10 am    Post subject: EM Proposal, An Additional Fix Reply with quote

I have played a couple games now under the new EM system. As long as EM is being fixed, I have an additional proposal.

I propose that you keep the requirement to maintain evasive for 2 impulses as it is now, BUT, that if EM is continued over the turn break that time under Evasive Maneuvering from the previous turn counts toward that requirement. (you still have to pay 6 movement cost on turn x, and then an additional 6 movement on turn x+1).

Currently, if you continue evasive over the turn break (ie you paid for EM during energy Allocation), you are still STUCK being evasive until the beginning if impulse 3 (you were evasive during the movement portion of Imp 1and 2, thus you can cancel on impulse 3). This is a tactically difficult position to be in, especially when you might be in a situation where you only needed to be evasive during impulse 1 and want to cancel it at the beginning of Impulse 2.

The new EM rule is all about properly planning your use of evasive maneuvers. Time spent in evasive over the turn break should count toward that planning. Under the current rules, you are punished for being in situation where you need to be evasive during impulse 1, but not impulse 2, and the current rules allow no relief from this problem. (Yes I just played a game where this was a significant problem.)

(The example in the rules is that you announce evasive on impulse 3, and then you cannot cancel evasive until the beginning of impulse 6)
_________________
Once again I have proven that even in the future, your photon torpedoes are built by the lowest bidder.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Bolo_MK_XL
Commander


Joined: 16 Jan 2007
Posts: 787
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Solution to every issue not involving a weapon ----

Start during Energy allocation ------
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mjwest
Commodore


Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 3489
Location: Dallas, Texas

PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 2:19 am    Post subject: Re: EM Proposal, An Additional Fix Reply with quote

Patrick Doyle wrote:
I propose that you keep the requirement to maintain evasive for 2 impulses as it is now, BUT, that if EM is continued over the turn break that time under Evasive Maneuvering from the previous turn counts toward that requirement. (you still have to pay 6 movement cost on turn x, and then an additional 6 movement on turn x+1).

Assuming I am reading this correctly, I have already proposed this, and it is being considered.

Fundamentally, when EM is continued over a turn break, it has to be considered an "activation" (or whatever the correct term is) to prevent the ship from starting EM again that turn. As a result, the two impulse delay is imposed.

I have proposed that when EM is continued over a turn break, it does count as a new "activation", but does NOT reset the two impulse delay. This would remove an unnecessary side-effect which is already special cased.

I am hopeful of its chances.
_________________

Federation Commander Answer Guy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Patrick Doyle
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 208
Location: Norfolk, VA

PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 11:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mike,
That is great hear, I think it is a necessary change. (PS- I didn't realize it had already been posted.)

Pat
_________________
Once again I have proven that even in the future, your photon torpedoes are built by the lowest bidder.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Kang
Fleet Captain


Joined: 23 Sep 2007
Posts: 1955
Location: Devon, UK

PostPosted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 5:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd second that proposal, guys. Good thinking. In my opinion, the turn break is a very artificial [although, I grant, necessary] line in the sand that needed to be lost during the port from SFB, as far as possible.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
DNordeen
Commander


Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 531

PostPosted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What it really comes down to is a matter of fairness and balance.

If someone got caught by the Kzintis, Lyrans, Gorns, Roms, or Klingons at range 4, declaring EM would be a death sentence.

Same "save me I f'd up" tactic against a Fed, Hydran, Selt, or Thol and you get off scot free.

From the otherside...

Closing with the Kzintis, Gorns, Roms, Klingons, Lyrans, etc., Does he have enough power for EM? Who cares, he tries it and he's a dead man.

Closing with the Feds, Hydran, Selt, or Thol...I better think of a way to deal with his EM or I'll never be able to hit him at all the entire game.

Why should some races be punished for a rule that is death against other races? The rules should affect each races as fairly as possible. If everyone can use a rule to invalidate all firepower of certain races, people will stop playing them..."It's harder to win because he EMs whenever I get close to him. Guess, I'll just play Kzinti or Lyran instead so I can hammer him if he gets to close and EMs."

Think about the disruptor-leak rule against Andros. If that rule wasn't present to balance Andros against disruptors, the Andro would be unbalanced against disruptor races. Same with EM. It should be balanced for all races and not hinder some while benefiting others.

Lastly, SFB did not allow for this situation. The adjusted rule more closely aligns with the original SFB rule. All comments about this not being SFB are really just distractions on this one. FC is based on SFB, and the rules should align as closely as possible to avoid unbalancing the game by accident (which is what happened with the original EM rule).
_________________
Speed is life; Patience is victory

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Federation Commander Forum Index -> Rules Questions All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Page 6 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group